at zero because it was to offset any benefits that the other people, married plus 1, married plus 2 got. and as i look at these rates, besides plan 1, it's going to leave the city as far as i can tell open for someone to say, i want the same monetary amount as this other employee's getting because just because he's married shouldn't affect why i don't get it as well. so, i think the city is leaving them self open for problems. i'm not saying an employee couldn't have done that prior to this, but there's going to be more incentive to do it now because it's costing them money out of their pocket. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none. madam secretary, item number 4, please. >> item 4, discussion item, update on financial reporting as of may 31, 2013, gregg sass.